Welcome to our forums...

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29
  1. #1
    Fundamental Thinker
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,547

    Post King James Easy-Reading Bible

    Gail Riplinger attacked the King James Easy-Reading Bible, suggesting that it is one of several “new sleazy reading bibles” and “illegitimate offsprings,” and calling it a “counterfeit,” and a “perversion” (In Awe of Thy Word, pp. 471, 474). Gail Riplinger also included it in her list of claimed “corrupt versions” (p. 1184). Riplinger claimed: “The KJV-ER fouls its lines with so-called ‘definitions,’ which copy exactly the same evil tenor found in the text of the Jehovah Witness and NIV versions” (p. 481). She implied that “it departs from the Received Greek Text” (p. 474). Riplinger does not actually prove her misleading and incorrect accusations. Pointing out the attempted update of the spelling, archaic verb endings, archaic pronouns, and some archaic words is not valid evidence for claiming that another Greek text was supposedly used. Her misleading attacks on any edition that updates archaic spelling or words forms would seem to conflict with her own statement that “synonyms can be substituted” and her acceptance of the pre-1611 English Bibles. Do her accusations seem very extreme and inconsistent after considering the quotations in Riplinger’s book that indicate a high regard for the Bishops’ Bible even with its claimed simpler vocabulary? Anyone who claims to have collated the pre-1611 English Bibles should know that there are greater differences between the “pure” Bishops’ Bible and the KJV than any differences the minor updating makes between the KJV and the KJV-ER. The actual documented facts indicate that Riplinger does not provide objective, reliable, and accurate information about the pre-1611 English Bibles and about updated revisions and present English Bibles.

    In the November, 2007, BFT Update, it was reported that D. A. Waite’s oldest son, who was the footnote author and editor for Waite’s Defined KJB, had helped in the making of the King James Easy-Reading Bible. That indicates that the sources for many of the updated spellings and the definitions in the KJV-ER were likely the same ones used for Waite’s Defined KJB. The Defined KJB had an appendix entitled “Old Verb Endings Classified and Explained” (pp. 1653-1660) that explained how to update the archaic verb endings in the KJV, and that appendix may have been applied to the making of the KJV-ER. The man who was responsible for the publishing of the King James Easy-Reading Bible seems to hold to a KJV-only view. D. A. Waite wrote: “Get a Defined King James Bible if you want to have the Words of God translated into understandable English” (Fundamentalist Deception on Bible Preservation, p. 40). Waite maintained that “the uncommon words are defined accurately in the footnotes” of his Defined KJB (A Critical Answer, p. 121). In a footnote, H. D. Williams asserted that Waite’s Defined KJB “defines the archaic words excellently” (Pure Words of God, p. 13). If those same words excellently and accurately translated into understandable English are put in the text instead of in footnotes or marginal notes, do they become wrong? It would likely cost less to print the updated, accurate. understandable English in the text instead of in hundreds or thousands of footnotes or marginal notes.

    Riplinger seems to be making terms such as “perversion” and “corrupt version” practically meaningless or useless when she uses them for minor updating and spelling changes such as those found in the KJV-ER.

  2. #2
    Fundamental Thinker
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,563

    Default

    Since the KJB is now manifest in a standard edition, those who fool about with the spelling today (and in defiance of proper tradition and purity) are not producing something to be desired.
    __________________________
    http://www.bibleprotector.com

  3. #3
    Like It, Love it, Gotta Have It
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Gulf Shores, Alabama
    Posts
    9,107

    Default

    Simply, they are not producing something to be desired by the KJVO. Certainly, if God did not desire that His Word be put into the common vernacular, He would have clearly said so.
    Providing Free Sunday School Lessons to offset heresy (Semi-Pelagianism, KJVOism etcetera...)


    Quote Originally Posted by OneBook View Post
    FSSL, you know there is no scripture stating the AV1611 is the preserved word of God.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    29,530

    Default

    Since the KJB is now manifest in a standard edition, those who fool about with the spelling today (and in defiance of proper tradition and purity) are not producing something to be desired.

    Not desired by you, anyway, but you don't matter.

  5. #5
    Master of Fundamentalism
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    402

    Default

    There is a very significant portion of the American population reading at below highschool level, presumably with a speaking vocabulary to match. With that in mind, there may be very good reason to work up a Bible - either a new translation (like the TEV or the Basic English version) or a rendition of an existing English version that deliberately aims at what teachers call "high-low readers" (high reader interest, low reading ability). [I can't prove it, but I suspect that when the KJV was first published, there was a very considerable demographic in England that had trouble trying to read it.]

    There are now study editions of Shakespeare that have, side-by-side, Shakespeare's words with a modern English "translation". As Shakespeare's English is of approximately the same vintage as KJV English, I think you can see where this is heading.

  6. #6
    Fundamental Thinker
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
    Since the KJB is now manifest in a standard edition, those who fool about with the spelling today (and in defiance of proper tradition and purity) are not producing something to be desired.
    The proper tradition of the early English translators and the KJV translators was that a translation should be in language that is understandable by its readers today.


    William Tyndale commented: “For if I understand not the meaning, it helpeth me not” (Answer, p. 97). In the introduction of his translation of Jeremiah, Benjamin Blayney (editor of the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV) asked: “Can any Scripture be profitable except it be understood? And if not rightly understood, may not the perversion of it be proportionately dangerous?“ (p. xv). James Peirce commented: “For the people, words that are commonly used and easy to be understood, should be preferred to those that are ancient and obsolete” (Vindication, p. 489). Charles Spurgeon noted: “Unless we understand what we read we have not read it; the heart of the reading is absent. We commonly condemn the Romanists for keeping the daily service in the Latin tongue; yet it might as well be in the Latin language as in any other tongue if it be not understood by the people” (Spurgeon’s Expository Ency., Vol. 15, p. 209). This was the view that the KJV translators themselves stated in their preface to the 1611. They wrote: "But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar” [referring to the common people].

  7. #7
    Fundamental Thinker
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,563

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coverdale View Post
    The proper tradition of the early English translators and the KJV translators was that a translation should be in language that is understandable by its readers today.
    The King James Bible is comprehensible. God has also placed hard sayings in His Word as a test to see whether or not a person might study or labour at that place. Opting for an excuse to change His Word improperly is doing despite to the whole providential work of the Spirit in supplying His Word today.

    This was the view that the KJV translators themselves stated in their preface to the 1611. They wrote: "But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar” [referring to the common people].
    You are misapplying their quote. The KJB men said that their work was an exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue; do you suggest that we are not speaking English now? Again, they were speaking about the Romanists keeping their Vulgate in Latin, and keeping Scripture from the people. Is the King James Bible really keeping God's Word away from believers today?

    Is the Holy Ghost so weak that after supplying His Word in English (and most people don't even believe that!), He could not instruct people, nor guide them into the full truth of it?
    __________________________
    http://www.bibleprotector.com

  8. #8
    Like It, Love it, Gotta Have It
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Gulf Shores, Alabama
    Posts
    9,107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
    The King James Bible is comprehensible. God has also placed hard sayings in His Word as a test to see whether or not a person might study or labour at that place. Opting for an excuse to change His Word improperly is doing despite to the whole providential work of the Spirit in supplying His Word today.
    So when the KJV says "let women remain silent" that is a hard saying God intended it to be hard seeing that you don't believe it.
    Providing Free Sunday School Lessons to offset heresy (Semi-Pelagianism, KJVOism etcetera...)


    Quote Originally Posted by OneBook View Post
    FSSL, you know there is no scripture stating the AV1611 is the preserved word of God.

  9. #9
    Fundamental Thinker
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
    Opting for an excuse to change His Word improperly is doing despite to the whole providential work of the Spirit in supplying His Word today.

    Updating the spelling, archaic verb endings, and even archaic words is not improper. The KJV translators themselves updated many archaic words in the Bishops' Bible and other pre-1611 English Bibles. Are you claiming that the KJV translators improperly changed the Scriptures when they made many revisions and updatings in the good pre-1611 English Bibles? Are you claiming that later KJV editors improperly changed the Scriptures when they updated and changed a great deal of the spelling and presentation in the 1611 edition and some later editions?

  10. #10
    Fundamental Thinker
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,563

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coverdale View Post
    Updating the spelling, archaic verb endings, and even archaic words is not improper.
    The standardisation and other editing having taken place in the normal, accepted and authentic line of editions from 1611 is proper.

    The KJV translators themselves updated many archaic words in the Bishops' Bible and other pre-1611 English Bibles.
    The first 1611 edition of the KJB is numbered as the first purification, because it is supersuccessionary to previous English Bibles, e.g. the Bishops'. It improved former language use. Words like "updating" and "archaic" have a double, emotive or misapplied meanings which are inaccurate. Unless these terms are used properly (which they are not when a certain person a priori rejects the accuracy of the KJB and the summation of its editions) they are to be avoided.

    Are you claiming that the KJV translators improperly changed the Scriptures when they made many revisions and updatings in the good pre-1611 English Bibles?
    Since I accept PROPER editorial work, I accept the KJB is better than the former good English Bibles. However, I reject the IMPROPER editorial work of others, such as Scrivener, Norton and others.

    Are you claiming that later KJV editors improperly changed the Scriptures when they updated and changed a great deal of the spelling and presentation in the 1611 edition and some later editions?
    I said,

    Opting for an excuse to change His Word improperly is doing despite to the whole providential work of the Spirit in supplying His Word today.
    Meaning: God did supply His Word today by a providential work of PROPER editorial purification which has been completed.
    __________________________
    http://www.bibleprotector.com

 

 
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Page generated in 1,406,696,320.17159 seconds with 14 queries

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0